City of Sacramento | City of West Sacramento

Summary Report
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
February 2011
Fehr & Peers | ICF International | Dokken Engineering | AIM Consulting | Endicott Communications, Inc.
Project Team
Fian Balbakken City of Saciamento
Spaiky Baiiis City of Saciamento
Tom Zeiunei City of Saciamento
Nauieen Pascoe City of West Saciamento
uieta vohleis City of West Saciamento
Consultants
Project Lead Fehi Peeis
Environmental ICF Inteinational
Cost Estimates Bokken Engineeiing
Stakeholder and Public Outreach
AIN Consulting
Enuicott Communications Inc
Stakeholders
ASB Piopeities Baviu Stiouu
Biyte anu Bioueiick Community Action
Netwoik Iim Biewei
Califoinia Bepaitment of ueneial Seivices
Cathy Buck
Califoinia State Railioau Nuseum
Cathy Tayloi
Caltians Bistiict Alyssa Begley
Capitol Aiea Bevelopment Authoiity
Iackie Whitelam
Bowntown Saciamento Paitneiship
Kevin uieene
uieatei Bioauway Paitneiship
Teiesa Rocha
Inuian Beiitage Centei Ioe uoeuen
Lanu Paik Community Association
Naik Abiahams
Le Rivage Botel Naik Salquest
Ramco Enteipiises Ban Ramos
Rivei Bistiict Patty Kleinknecht
The Riveis Community Association
Ioseph Baiankin
SABA Walt Seifeit
SAC0u Natt Caipentei
Saciamento Netio Chambei Kelly Bienk
Saciamento Netiopolitan A0NB
Chiis Noifas
Saciamento Regional Tiansit Paul Naix
Saciamento Rivei Ciossings Association
Iim Ranulett
Saciamento Walking Sticks Susan Naitimo
Southsiue Paik Neighboihoou Association
Shaion Spiowls
WALKSaciamento Anne ueiaghty
West Saciamento Chambei of Commeice
Benice Seals
Yolo County Tianspoitation Bistiict
Eiik Reitz
Acknowledgements
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Alternatives Development and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Transportation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
North Market Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
South Market Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Other Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
List of Tables
Table ES-1 Evaluation Criteria Performance Measures . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table ES-2 Conceptual Construction Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
List of Figures
Figure ES-1 Study Area and Existing Bridge Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure ES-2 Illustrative Crossing Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure ES-3 Land Use Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure ES-4 Transportation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure ES-5 Market Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Summary Report | Page 1
Sacramento River Crossings
Alternatives Study
Introduction
For over a decade, the concept of another Sacramento River crossing has surfaced in multiple forms,
including the City of Sacramento and City of West Sacramento General Plans, the Sacramento
Riverfront Master Plan (SRMP), and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG)
Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). Mobility, economic development, riverfront accessibility,
connectivity, air quality, safety, and security have been cited as beneits of a new Sacramento
River crossing, while community and environmental impacts are often presented as concerns.
Page 2 | Summary Report
Sacramento River Crossings
Alternatives Study
The puipose of the Saciamento Rivei Ciossings
Alteinatives Stuuy was to take a compiehensive
look at the neeu foi a new ciossing anu to
answei the following key questions
Why is a new crossing needed?
What are the objectives a new crossing
should achieve?
What locations are feasible for constructing
a new crossing?
What travel modes should a new crossing
serve?
How would a new crossing inluence future
travel demand?
How much would a new crossing cost to
construct?
How do stakeholders and the public feel
about new crossings?
In answeiing these questions the stuuy
engageu stakeholueis anu the public in the
tianspoitation planning piocess It staiteu
with ueining the neeu anu puipose of a new
ciossing which uiiectly iesponus to the iist
two questions anu then ieining it thioughout
the stuuy baseu on stakeholuei anu public
input The inal Neeu anu Puipose Statement
shown on the opposite page is giounueu in
the community values stateu in the piinciples
of the SRNP the ueneial Plan policies fiom
both cities anu expiesseu by stakeholueis
anu the public uuiing the planning piocess
Baseu on this statement the cleai neeu foi a
new ciossing stems fiom limiteu connectivity
which is a baiiiei to economic activity social
exchanges iecieational oppoitunities anu
access to jobs This baiiiei eect cieates
long tiip lengths that uiscouiage walking
anu bicycling while cieating uepenuence on
automobile use that geneiates negative public
health eects anu auveise enviionmental
eects A new ciossing woulu iesponu to
the neeu but also be expecteu to accomplish
auuitional objectives listeu unuei the pioject
puipose These objectives weie ueineu by the
pioject team with input fiom the stakeholueis
anu public
The othei key components of the stuuy
incluueu a constiaints anu oppoitunities
analysis to iuentify potential ciossing
locations This was followeu by an alteinatives
analysis that evaluateu each ciossing location
in teims of moual options tianspoitation
peifoimance enviionmental impacts anu
constiuction costs This infoimation was
synthesizeu anu ievieweu against the neeu
anu puipose statement to uevelop the inal
stuuy iecommenuations Key elements of the
stuuy aie uesciibeu in this executive summaiy
while the Technical Infoimation Compilation
Repoit contains the uetaileu infoimation
uevelopeu uuiing the stuuy anu piesenteu to
the stakeholueis anu the public
The Sacramento Riverfront Master Plan builds on four central
guiding principles identied by the communities:
Creating riverfront neighborhoods and districts
Establishing a web of connectivity
Strengthening the green backbone of the community
Making places for celebration
Summary Report | Page 3
Sacramento River Crossings
Alternatives Study
NEED AND PURPOSE STATEMENT
NEED: The proposed action is needed for the reasons listed below.
Limited connectivity across the river creates longer trip lengths, which discourage
walking and bicycling.
Longer trip lengths create dependence on automobile use that generates negative
public health eects and adverse environmental eects such as emissions of air
pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHGs).
Limited connectivity across the river creates concentrated vehicle tra c ows on
existing bridges and their connecting approach roadways, resulting in undesirable travel
delays for vehicle tra c, including public bus transit during weekday peak periods and
special events.
Limited connectivity across the river reduces options for emergency response teams,
thereby increasing response times and limiting alternatives for evacuations.
The I Street, Tower, and Pioneer bridges do not fully comply with current design
standards, which limits or restricts multimodal use, increases seismic vulnerability, and
exacerbates the potential eects of natural disasters.
Limited connectivity across the river is a barrier to economic activity, social exchanges,
recreational opportunities, and access to jobs within the urban core of Sacramento
and West Sacramento.
Limited connectivity to the riverfront reduces the potential to achieve planned urban
development and redevelopment of opportunity sites identied in the adopted plans
of Sacramento and West Sacramento.
Limited connectivity reduces opportunities to use the riverfront for enjoyment and
recreation.
PURPOSE: The proposed action is intended to achieve the following objectives.
Increase the number of river crossings that meet current design standards and
encourage travel by walking, bicycling, low energy vehicles, and public transit.
Increase the number of persons that can safely, e ciently, and reliably cross the river.
Increase options for emergency response teams to cross the river.
Increase options for evacuations.
Improve the connectivity to, and accessibility of, businesses, recreational areas, and
new or redevelopment opportunity sites located in the urban core of Sacramento and
West Sacramento.
Reduce trip length distances across the river between major origins and destinations.
Reduce the growth in vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and vehicle hours of delay (VHD).
Reduce the growth in transportation-related energy use, air pollution emissions, and
GHG emissions.
Reduce the growth in vehicle tra c on local neighborhood streets, especially cut-
through tra c.
Minimize use of the Pioneer Bridge by local tra c.
Page 4 | Summary Report
Sacramento River Crossings
Alternatives Study
Alternatives Development and Analysis
The Saciamento Rivei Ciossings Alteinatives
Stuuy staiteu with a laige stuuy aiea that
extenueu fiom the conluence of the Ameiican
Rivei to the Fieepoit Biiuge appioximately
miles to the south The Neeu anu Puipose
Statement was useu to assess anu ieine this
initial stuuy aiea to the inal limits shown in
Figuie ES This ieineu stuuy aiea was the
focus of the alteinatives uevelopment anu
analysis which staiteu with an evaluation of
existing constiaints unuei the following topics
to iuentify potential oppoitunities foi new
ciossing locations
Environmental These constraints include
biological (i.e., plants, animals, water, and
air quality) and cultural resources that are
regulated by federal, state, and regional
agencies.
Physical These constraints include
natural and manmade physical features
that would inluence the feasibility or cost
of constructing a new crossing.
Land Use These constraints include land
uses that have a special status or sensitivity
that would inluence the feasibility or cost
of constructing a new crossing.
S
R
iv
e
r R
d
W Capitol Av
F St
L
in
d
e
n
R
d
In
d
u
s
t
r
ia
l B
l
3
r
d

S
t
N
H
a
r
b
o
r
B
l
Lake W
a
s
h
in
g
t
o
n
B
l
R
iv
e
r
b
a
n
k
R
d
15th St
V
i
l
l
a
g
e

P
k
W
e
s
t
a
c
r
e

R
d
Stonegate Dr
Sacramento Av
Merkley A
v
B St
R
i
s
k
e

L
n
S
u
n
s
e
t
A
v
Evergreen Av
S

R
i
v
e
r

R
d
3
r
d

S
t
6
t
h

S
t
L St
F
r
e
e
p
o
r
t

B
l
v
d
B
ro
ad
w
ay
W
St
R
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
e

B
l
v
d
P St
N
St
K
St
5
t
h

S
t
9
t
h

S
t
7
t
h

S
t
1
5
t
h

S
t
1
9
t
h

S
t
8
t
h

S
t
1
0
t
h

S
t
L
a
n
d

P
a
r
k

D
r
A
l
h
a
m
b
r
a

B
l
v
d
1
2
t
h

S
t
R
ich
ard
s B
lvd
C
ap
ito
l A
ve
N
B
St
S
u
tte
r
v
ille
R
d
N
1
2
th
S
t
N

1
6
t
h

S
t
C
ap
ito
l M
all
Vallejo W
ay
N

7
t
h

S
t
D

S
t
Vallejo W
ay
E St
2
4
t
h

S
t
I St
T St
F St
H
St
C
St
G
St
Q
St
1
6
t
h

S
t
2
4
t
h

S
t
21st Ave
2n
d
A
ve
2
1
s
t

S
t
R
St
5
80
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o

R
i
v
e
r
American River
S
t
u
d
y

L
i
m
i
t
s
N
NOT TO SCALE
FINAL STUDY AREA AND
EXISTING BRIDGE CROSSINGS
FIGURE ES-1
I Street Bridge
Tower Bridge
Pioneer Bridge
Page 6 | Summary Report
Sacramento River Crossings
Alternatives Study
The constiaints weie baseu on a ieview of
available infoimation anu input fiom the
stakeholuei auvisoiy committee 0ppoitunity
ciossing locations weie iuentiieu by
ieviewing the constiaints anu the following
infoimation
Planned development and redevelopment
areas (also known as opportunity
development sites).
Existing and planned transportation
network, including roadways, rail lines,
bikeways, and pedestrian facilities.
Stakeholder input from their second meeting
and the June 14, 2010, site tour.
The main piouuct of the constiaints anu
oppoitunities analysis was a technical
memoianuum that incluueu a pieliminaiy
map of potential ciossing locations anu moual
options foi each ciossing The memo anu map
weie the key items piesenteu at the thiiu
stakeholuei meeting anu the public woikshop
At this point in the stuuy the moual options
incluueu biiuges feiiies anu aeiial tiams
Fuithei assessment of these moual options
baseu on the Neeu anu Puipose Statement
uuiing the alteinatives analysis ievealeu that
a feiiy oi aeiial tiam woulu fail to meet key
pioject puipose objectives Figuie ES on
pages anu shows the inal map of eight
potential ciossing locations anu the vaiious
moual options they coulu suppoit
Following is a summaiy of the eight ciossing
location oppoitunities
Location 1 This location could connect
development/redevelopment opportunity
sites on both sides of the river, including
the River District Speciic Plan area, The
Rivers development area, and the planned
California Indian Heritage Center. The
location also offers the potential to connect
directly to I-5. A pedestrian- and bicycle-only
bridge was previously identiied in this area
in the Riverfront Master Plan.
Location 2 This location could connect
development/redevelopment opportunity
sites on both sides of the river including the
River District Speciic Plan area, Railyards
Speciic Plan area, Washington Speciic Plan
area, and the planned California Indian
Heritage Center.
Location 3 This location focuses on
the existing I Street Bridge corridor and
strengthening the connection between
downtown Sacramento, the Railyards
Speciic Plan area, and the Washington
Speciic Plan area and surrounding
neighborhood. A key question is whether it
would be more cost effective to upgrade the
existing bridge or to replace it altogether.
The presumption for this study is that any
modiication in this area would not increase
the number of lanes for vehicles but would
enhance the crossing for automobiles,
transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Transit vehicles do not use the I Street
Bridge because it is too narrow, and
bicyclists must share the narrow travel lanes
with vehicles given the absence of shoulders.
Summary Report | Page 7
Sacramento River Crossings
Alternatives Study
Location 4 This location focuses on the
existing Tower Bridge corridor and would
continue to connect the core of downtown
Sacramento with north-south gateways
to the Washington Speciic Plan area and
Bridge District development area. While a
new crossing would not likely be added here,
enhancements to the existing Tower Bridge
could be made to accommodate rail transit
or provide additional space for bicycles and
pedestrians.
Location 5 This location could connect
existing developed areas and develop-
ment/redevelopment opportunity sites on
both sides of the river. The Sacramento
side of the river includes the P, Q, and R
Street corridors. The R Street corridor is
a planned mixed-use growth area. On the
West Sacramento side of the river, this
location could connect to the Bridge District.
A pedestrian- and bicycle-only bridge was
previously identiied in this area in the
Riverfront Master Plan. The elevation of P,
Q, and R Streets above I-5 in this area would
help address the challenge of crossing both
the river and I-5.
Location 6 This location could connect
development/redevelopment opportunity
sites on both sides of the river, including
the Docks project and Miller Park
redevelopment area in Sacramento, with
the Pioneer Bluff Redevelopment area in
West Sacramento. This area also captures
the existing Pioneer Bridge, which presents
an opportunity for enhancing this existing
vehicle crossing to accommodate non-
auto modes. A new crossing in this area
may present an opportunity to leverage
planned relocation of the existing fuel
tank farms on both sides of the river to the
Port of Sacramento. The Riverfront Master
Plan proposed extending Broadway as a
multimodal bridge across the river in this
area. Broadway already crosses under I-5.
Location 7 This location could connect
development/redevelopment opportunity
sites on both sides of the river, including the
Miller Park Redevelopment Project area
in Sacramento and the Southport Speciic
Plan and Stone Lock project areas in West
Sacramento.
Location 8 This location could connect the
existing Land Park area in Sacramento with
the Southport Speciic Plan area in West
Sacramento. This location also offers the
potential for a direct connection to I-5, with
or without a connection to Sutterville Road.
American River
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o

R
i
v
e
r
S
R
iv
e
r
R
d
F St
L
in
d
e
n
R
d
3
r
d

S
t
V
i
l
l
a
g
e

P
k
B St
R
i
s
k
e

L
n
S

R
i
v
e
r

R
d
3
r
d

S
t
6
t
h

S
t
L
S
t
B
ro
a
d
w
a
y
W
S
t
R
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
e

B
l
v
d
N
S
t
5
t
h

S
t
9
t
h

S
t
7
t
h

S
t
8
t
h

S
t
1
0
t
h

S
t
L
a
n
d

P
a
r
k

D
r
Richards Blvd
F
r
o
n
t

S
t
Sutterville Rd
C
a
p
ito
l M
a
ll
Vallejo W
ay
D

S
t
H
S
t
Q
S
t
R
St
2
n
d
A
v
e

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Destinations/Crossing Connections
California Indian Heritage Center/
The Rivers to River District
Washington Specic Plan to
River District/Railyards
Washington Specic Plan to Railyards
(I Street Bridge)
Washington Specic Plan/
Bridge District to Downtown Sacramento
(Tower Bridge)
Bridge District to R St. Corridor
Bridge District/Pioneer Blu to
Docks/Miller Park
(Pioneer Bridge)
Stone Lock to Miller Park
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Southport to I-5/Sutterville Rd. 8.
Key Map Ped/Bike Only
Notes: Shaded cells denote crossing type not best suited due to low population and employment density, long
distances between major destinations for non-motorized modes, or high demand for motorized modes.
(1) Transit bridges would have dedicated lanes for the exclusive use of transit vehicles.
(2) Auto bridges could be two or more lanes and would be used by buses operating in mixed trac.
River District
Specic Plan
River District
Specic Plan
-
Ped/Bike with Transit (1)
BRIDGES
All Modes - 2 Lanes (2) All Modes - 4 Lanes
ILLUSTRATIVE CROSSING TYPES
FIGURE ES-2
Page 10 | Summary Report
Sacramento River Crossings
Alternatives Study
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Inteinetbaseu public suivey which incluueu
almost iesponses This appioach
ensuieu that the alteinatives analysis
woulu ielate uiiectly to the community
values expiesseu as being impoitant to the
stakeholueis anu the public Table ES shows
the inal evaluation ciiteiia
The alteinatives analysis focuseu on
evaluation ciiteiia uevelopeu by the pioject
team in collaboiation with the stakeholueis
The evaluation ciiteiia was linkeu to speciic
community values iuentiieu eaily in the stuuy
piocess baseu on auopteu local iegional anu
state plans plus stakeholuei input anu an
Summary Report | Page 11
Sacramento River Crossings
Alternatives Study
Table ES-1 Evaluation Criteria Performance Measures
COMMUNITY VALUES
QUANTITATIVE
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
QUALITATIVE
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Accessibility
Increase accessibility to the riverfront
Remove barriers to travel, especially by
walking and bicycling
Reduce gaps in the transportation network
Population and employment within mile
(walk) radius of each river crossing location
Population and employment within a
5-minute drive of each river crossing
location
Travel market map based on estimated
distribution of vehicle trips using each
crossing
Potential to reduce emergency vehicle
response times
Aesthetics
Maintain local character and identity
Location is compatible with existing or
planned development
Design would be consistent with scale of
existing development
Connectivity
Increase the number of river crossings
Improve pedestrian and bicycle network
connectivity
Number of new crossings
Number of vehicle lanes crossing the river
Number of sidewalks/paths crossing
the river
Number of bike lanes/paths crossing
the river
Change in average spacing between
crossings
Economic
Minimize impedance to movement of
goods, services, and workers
Develop cost-eective alternatives
Align costs and funding
Population and employment within mile
(walk) radius of each river crossing location
Population and employment within a
5-minute drive of each river crossing
location
Cost compared to funding estimate
Environment
Protect environmental and cultural
resources
Protect and restore riverfront environment
Reduce travel-related energy and emissions
Change in regional vehicle miles of travel
(VMT)
Environmental and cultural resource
disruption
Transportation energy demand reduction
potential
Mobility
Reduce undesired future congestion
Improve roadway utilization
Reduce travel times to cross the river by all
modes
Travel times for select origin-destination
pairs by mode
Change in regional VMT
Congested lane-miles within study area
Potential to induce new travel
Neighborhoods/Community
Preserve existing conditions
Minimize through tra c
Percent change in neighborhood cut-
through tra c
Vehicle tra c volume change on major
neighborhood roadways
Potential to induce new growth beyond
current plans
Safety
Improve travel safety
Reduce severity of collisions
Improve emergency vehicle response
Meets current design standards
Page 12 | Summary Report
Sacramento River Crossings
Alternatives Study
TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
ielateu evaluation ciiteiia fiom Table ES
This infoimation suggests that each ciossing
woulu seive uieient amounts of population
anu employment with those closei to the
uiban coie seiving the most Bowevei the
coie aiea alieauy has existing biiuges wheieas
the aieas to the noith anu south have none
This conuition paitly explains why auuing new
biiuges to the noith oi south has a gieatei
inluence on ieuucing vehicle miles of tiavel
vNT
Inuence of accessibility on development
Accessibility connectivity anu mobility aie the
community values that iesonateu most stiongly
with the stakeholueis These values aie
uiiectly ielateu to existing anu futuie levels of
population anu employees Figuie ES shows
that the stuuy aiea has a signiicant amount
of planneu population anu employment
giowth especially in the uiban coie aieas of
Saciamento anu West Saciamento Figuie ES
ielates this giowth to each ciossing location
baseu on select accessibility anu mobility
7
7
7
7
.
7
6
.
4
1
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
.
6
0
.
3
8
.
3
1
.
3
7
.
3
2
.
3
7
.
5
1
Sacramento, CA
Portland, OR
LEGEND
Distance Between Bridges (miles)
Areas of Less Intense Development
Partly Due to Limited Assessibility
.60
Florin Rd
J St
P
o
w
e
r

I
n
n

R
d
H
St
S
t
o
c
k
t
o
n

B
l
v
d
H
o
w
e

A
v
e
B
e
l
l

S
t
B
ro
ad
w
ay
W
St
R
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
e

B
l
v
d
T
r
u
x
e
l

R
d
14th Ave
5
t
h

S
t
Mack Rd
47th Ave
D
e
l P
a
s
o
B
lv
d
Pocket Rd
N
o
r
t
h
g
a
t
e

B
l
v
d
S

L
a
n
d

P
a
r
k

D
r
W
El Camino Ave
7
t
h

S
t
Arden Way
G
loria D
r
E

S
t
o
c
k
t
o
n

B
l
v
d
T St
9
t
h

S
t
Sims Rd
Elsie Ave
Hurley Way
G
r
e
e
n
h
a
v
e
n

D
r
2
1
s
t

S
t
6
5
t
h

S
t
r
e
e
t

E
x
p
y
2
9
t
h

S
t
L
a
n
d

P
a
r
k

D
r
E
lv
a
s
A
v
e
S
S
t
Alta Arden Expy
1
2
t
h

S
t
Sierra Blvd
R
ic
h
ards Blvd
Exposition Blvd
Jaci
n
t
o

A
v
e
5
9
t
h

S
t
H
a
v
e
n
s
i
d
e

D
r
C
a
r
l
i
n

A
v
e
C
ap
ito
l A
ve
C
o
su
m
nes River Blvd
5
1
s
t

S
t
Stevenson Ave
41st Ave
W
i
n
d
b
r
id
g
e Dr
Eh
rh
ard
t A
ve
C
a
r
l
s
o
n
D
r
3
9
t
h

S
t
66th Ave
Brookfield
D
r
Irvin Way
G
a
tew
a
y

O
a
k
s

D
r
Tangerine Ave
5
8
t
h

S
t
26th Ave
P
a
l
m
e
r

H
o
u
s
e

D
r
B
r
i
g
g
s

D
r
O
r
c
h
a
r
d

L
n
Jacinto Rd
Uni v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
W
r
i
g
h
t

S
t
12th Ave
Eleanor Ave
E
t
h
a
n

W
a
y
L
e
w
i
s

S
t
e
i
n

R
d
E
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n

S
t
N

7
t
h

S
t
P
a
r
k
R
i
v
ie
ra
W
a
y
College Town Dr
L
a
g
u
n
a

S
t
a
r

D
r
Meadowhaven Dr
Amber Creek Dr
2n
d
A
ve
E
l
v
a
s

A
v
e
A
u
b
u
r
n
B
l
v
d
Dwight Rd
C
St
2
4
t
h

S
t
W S
t
o
c
k
t
o
n

B
l
v
d
2
4
t
h

S
t
Calvine Rd
C
S
t
E
t
h
a
n

W
a
y
1
6
t
h

S
t
2
9
t
h

S
t
6
5
t
h

S
t
F St
O
r
c
h
a
r
d

L
n
I St
G
S
t
21st Ave
E

S
t
o
c
k
t
o
n Blvd
2
4
t
h

S
t
J
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n

B
l
S

R
i
v
e
r

R
d
F St
Southport Pk
L
in
d
e
n
R
d
In
d
u
s
t
r
ia
l B
l
Reed Av
3
r
d

S
t
N
H
a
r
b
o
r
B
l
R
iv
e
r
b
a
n
k Rd
V
i
l
l
a
g
e

P
k
W
e
s
t
a
c
r
e

R
d
S
t
o
n
e
gate Dr
Sacramento Av
P
a
r
k
w
a
y

B
l
Merk
l
e
y
A
v
B St
6
t
h

S
t
3
r
d

S
t
S

R
i
v
e
r

R
d
5
5
50
80
99
80
2
9
,
0
6
0
4
3
,
4
5
8
1
9
,
5
2
1
3
0
,
5
5
4
1
6
,
9
6
6
1
7
,
2
8
1
4
,
1
0
0
6
,
2
8
5
1
4
,
1
2
0
1
6
,
1
0
1
1
7
,
1
1
3
2
0
,
3
4
9
5
,
8
8
6
1
6
,
3
2
1
1
,
7
8
8
1
5
,
8
3
9
8
,
5
0
7
1
6
,
9
3
8
2
8
,
9
6
8
4
6
,
2
2
2
1
6
,
8
0
6
3
3
,
0
7
8
1
4
3
,
5
8
9
1
7
2
,
2
4
4
American River
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o

R
i
v
e
r
N
NOT TO SCALE
LAND USE FORECASTS
FIGURE ES-3
LEGEND
2005 Dwelling Units
2035 Dwelling Units
2005 Total Employment
2035 Total Employment
American River
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o

R
i
v
e
r
S
R
iv
e
r
R
d
F St
L
in
d
e
n
R
d
3
r
d

S
t
V
i
l
l
a
g
e

P
k
B St
R
i
s
k
e

L
n
S

R
i
v
e
r

R
d
3
r
d

S
t
6
t
h

S
t
L
S
t
B
ro
a
d
w
a
y
R
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
e

B
l
v
d
5
t
h

S
t
9
t
h

S
t
7
t
h

S
t
8
t
h

S
t
1
0
t
h

S
t
L
a
n
d

P
a
r
k

D
r
Richards Blvd
F
r
o
n
t

S
t
Sutterville Rd
C
a
p
ito
l M
a
ll
Vallejo W
ay
D

S
t
H
S
t
2
n
d
A
v
e

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Destinations/Crossing
Connections
Richards Boulevard -
California Indian Heritage
Center/The Rivers to
River District
C Street -
Washington Specic Plan to
River District/Railyards
I Street (Modied) -
Washington Specic Plan to
Railyards
Tower Bridge -
Washington Specic Plan/
Bridge District to
Downtown Sacramento
R Street -
Bridge District to R St.
Corridor
Broadway -
Bridge District/Pioneer Blu
to Docks/Miller Park
Marina View -
Stone Lock to Miller Park
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Sutterville Rd. -
Southport to I-5/
Sutterville Rd.
8.
Key Map
Notes: Shaded cells denote highest value.
(1) [2035 with new bridge] - [2035 no project]
(2) Change within study area during PM peak period.
(3) MT = Metric ton. Assumes one vehicle mile of travel generates approx. 1 lb. of CO2 equivalent.
* Congested lane miles increased by 1.9 for this alternative.
River District
Specic Plan
River District
Specic Plan
-
2035 Pop. Plus
Employ. within
1/2 mile
2005 Pop. Plus
Employ.within
1/2 mile
2035 Pop. Plus
Employ. within
5 min. Drive
2005 Pop. Plus
Employ. within
5 min. Drive
41,359 7,171
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
68,342 22,941
100,996 33,674
95,981
44,425
106,097 36,449
98,545 12,799
24,503 5,684
19,377 3,660
3,201
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
5,966
11,850
23,448
16,909
4,422
4,176
2,364
15,254
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
33,821
61,279
63,954
69,603
65,915
7,658
11,850
TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
FIGURE ES-4
2035 Total River
Crossing Daily
Volume Change (1)
2035 Annual
GHG Emission
Change (1, 3)
Sacramento
Potential Residential Neighborhoods
Aected by Trac Volume Changes
West Sacramento
2035 Lane-Miles
of Congestion
Change (1, 2)
2035 Regional
Daily VMT
Change (1)
16,090 -15,850 MT
3 3
-2.00
-95,760
5,790 -15,050 MT
5 4
-3.70
-90,920
11,360 -14,950 MT
No Change Compared to No Project
5 3
-5.30
-90,300
13,400 -13,650 MT
5
2
* -82,440
11,840 -15,370 MT
5 2
-7.50
-92,880
21,930 -15,370 MT
7
3
-14.60
-92,830
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
No Change Compared to No Project
Page 16 | Summary Report
Sacramento River Crossings
Alternatives Study
To bettei unueistanu the speciic aieas oi
maikets being seiveu by each ciossing a
visual analysis was conuucteu as shown in the
images on this page to show how the location
of a new biiuge aects the uistiibution of
the vehicle tiips that cioss it Thiee uistinct
maikets weie ievealeu noith cential anu
south The cential maiket is alieauy seiveu
by the I Stieet anu Towei Biiuges although
I Stieet uoes not accommouate all moues anu
is in neeu of signiicant maintenance The
noith maiket noith of I Stieet anu the south
maiket south of Pioneei Biiuge aie not
seiveu by any biiuges When a new biiuge is
intiouuceu into these aieas the useis tenu to
be concentiateu fiom the same aiea
W Capitol Av
F St
Industrial Bl
3
rd
S
t
N
H
arb
or B
l
Lake Washing
Riverbank Rd
15th St
V
illa
g
W
e
s t a
c
r e
R
d
Stonegate Dr
Sacramento Av
B
l
Merkley Av
B St
R
isk
e
L
n
Sunset Av
Evergreen Av
S R
ive
r R
d
3
rd
S
t
6
th
S
t
J St
L St
H St
Broadway
San Juan Rd
W St
ve
rsid
e
B
lvd
P St
T
r u
x
e
l R
d
N St K St
5
th
S
t
Del Paso Blvd
9
th
S
t
N
o
r t h
g
a
t e
B
l v
d
W El Camino Ave
7
th
S
t
1
5
th
S
t
N
o
r w
o
o
d
A
v
e
T St
1
9
th
S
t
3
0
th
S
t
8
th
S
t
1
0
th
S
t
3
4
th
S
t A
lh
a
m
b
ra
B
lv
d
1
2
th
S
t
Richards Blvd
Capitol Ave
N F reeway Blvd
A
ze
v
e
d
o
D
r
3
9
th
S
t
N B St
N 12th St
Mckinley Blvd
W
River Dr
Gateway Oaks D
r
N
1
6
th
S
t
O
r c
h
a
r d
L
n
Capitol Mall
Silver Eagle Rd
Vallejo Way
Arden Garden Connector
N
7
th
S
t
Natomas Pa
rk
D
r
D
S
t
Vallejo Way
E St
3
9
th
S
3
9
th
S
t
I St
O
r c
h
a
r d
L
n
T St
F St
H St
C St
G St
Q St
1
6
th
S
t
2
4
th
S
t
2nd Ave
2
1
st S
t
2
9
th
S
t
R St
5
80
80
5
LEGEND
Market Area Served
Higher Trips
Lower Trips
North
Jefferso
n
B
l
S River Rd
W Capitol Av
F St
Linden Rd
Industrial Bl
Davis Rd
G
r e
g
o
r y
A
v
3
rd
S
t
N
H
arb
o
r B
l
Lake Washingto
n Bl
Riverbank Rd
15th St
V
illa
g
e
P
k
W
e
s t a
c
r e
R
d
Stonegate Dr
Sacramento Av
P
a
rk
w
a
y
B
l
Merkley Av
B St
R
isk
e
L
n
Sunset Av
Evergreen Av
S R
ive
r R
d
3
rd
S
t
6
th
S
t
J St
L St
Fre
e
p
o
rt B
lv
d
Broadway
W St
R
ive
rsid
e
B
lvd
P St
N St K St
5
th
S
t
Del Paso Blvd
9
th
S
t
7
th
S
t
1
5
th
S
t
T
1
9
th
S
t
3
0
th
S
t
8
th
S
t
1
0
th
S
t
3
4
th
S
t
L
a
n
d
P
a
rk
D
r
A
lh
a
m
b
ra
B
lv
d
1
2
th
S
t
Richards Blvd
M
a
r t i n
L
u
t h
e
r K
i n
g
J r B
l v
d
Capitol Ave
35th Ave
N B St
Sutterville Rd
Irvin Way
N 12th St
Mcki
W
River Dr
26th Ave
N
1
6
th
S
t
Capitol Mall
Seamas Ave
Vallejo Way
Arden Garden Connector
N
7
th
S
t
Natomas P
a
rk
D
r
D
S
t
12th Avenue Byp
Vallejo Way
E St
2
4
th
S
t
I St
T St
2
4
t h
S
t
F St
H St
C St
G St
Q St
1
6
th
S
t
2
4
th
S
t
21st Ave
2nd Ave
2
1
st S
t
2
9
th
S
t
R St
5
80
LEGEND
Market Area Served
Higher Trips
Lower Trips
Central
Jefferso
n
B
l
S River Rd
W Capitol Av
F St
Linden Rd
Industrial Bl
Davis Rd
G
r e
g
o
r y
A
v
3
rd
S
t
N
H
arb
or B
l
Lake Washing
to
n Bl
Riverbank Rd
15th St
V
illa
g
e
P
k
W
e
s t a
c
r e
R
d
Stonegate Dr
Sacramento Av
P
a
rk
w
a
y
B
l
Merkley Av
B St
R
isk
e
L
n
Sunset Av
Evergreen Av
S R
ive
r R
d
3
rd
S
t
ive
r R
d
6
th
S
t
J St
L St
Fre
e
p
o
rt B
lv
d
Broadway
W St
R
ive
rsid
e
B
lvd
P St
N St K St
5
th
S
t
9
th
S
t
7
th
S
t
1
5
th
S
t
Dr
T
1
9
th
S
t
3
0
th
S
t
8
th
S
t
1
0
th
S
t
3
4
th
S
t
L
a
n
d
P
a
rk
D
r
A
lh
a
m
b
ra
B
lv
d
43rd Ave
1
2
th
S
t
Richards Blvd
M
a
r t i n
L
u
t h
e
r K
i n
g
J r B
l v
d
Capitol Ave
41st Ave
35th Ave
N B St
Sutterville Rd
Irvin Way
N 12th St
Mcki
26th Ave
N
1
6
th
S
t
Capitol Mall
Seamas Ave
Vallejo Way
N
7
th
S
t
Blair Ave
D
S
t
12th Avenue Byp
Vallejo Way
E St
2
4
th
S
t
I St
T St
2
4
t h
S
t
F St
H St
C St
G St
Q St
1
6
th
S
t
2
4
th
S
t
21st Ave
2nd Ave
2
1
st S
t
2
9
th
S
t
R St
5
80
LEGEND
Market Area Served
Higher Trips
Lower Trips
South
Summary Report | Page 17
Sacramento River Crossings
Alternatives Study
Anothei impoitant community value iuentiieu
by the stakeholueis was the pieseivation of
existing iesiuential neighboihoous anu the
uesiie to minimize iegional cut thiough tiafic
on iesiuential stieets that woulu occui uue
to a new ciossing The planning level analysis
conuucteu foi this stuuy uiu not contain
suficient uetail oi sensitivity to uiaw ueinitive
conclusions about potential iesiuential
neighboihoou eects but the analysis uiu
pioviue eviuence that new ciossings connecting
uiiectly to oi aujacent to existing iesiuential
neighboihoous hau a high likelihoou of
attiacting new tiafic thiough these aieas anu
shoulu be stuuieu in closei uetail in subsequent
pioject uevelopment phases
A complete summaiy of the tianspoitation
analysis can be founu in the Technical
Infoimation Compilation Repoit which
is a compilation of the infoimation that
was piouuceu uuiing this stuuy anu useu
in stakeholuei meetings anu the public
woikshop Since any new biiuge woulu
comply with cuiient uesign stanuaius anu
woulu impiove cuiient emeigency iesponse
capabilities these ciiteiia weie not uiiectly
incluueu in the tianspoitation analysis
summaiies Likewise each twolane biiuge
woulu auu the same numbei of vehicle lanes
siuewalks anu bike lanes As foi aesthetics
it is too eaily in the planning piocess to have
biiuge uesigns piepaieu Bowevei this was
an impoitant ciiteiion foi many stakeholueis
with a stiong piefeience foi low pioile
biiuge uesigns such as Towei Biiuge anu will
neeu to be auuiesseu as the pioject piogiesses
into uesign phases
COST ESTIMATES
The alteinatives analysis also incluueu cost
estimates The cost estimates consiueieu thiee
potential ciossing types as listeu below
Fixed bridge with a 55' vertical clearance
to comply with U.S. Coast Guard Navigable
Waterways design requirements (similar to
Pioneer Bridge height).
Fixed bridge with a 30' vertical clearance,
assuming an exception to the U.S. Coast
Guard Navigable Waterways design
requirements.
Moveable bridge similar to Tower Bridge or
I Street Bridge.
Page 18 | Summary Report
Sacramento River Crossings
Alternatives Study
Table ES-2 Conceptual Construction Cost Estimates
Bridges Ped/Bike Ped/Bike with Transit All Modes - 2 Lanes All Modes - 4 Lanes
Width 20' 60' 60' 100'
Types Range of Costs (in millions of dollars)
Fixed = 30' $35-$70 $45-$145 $40-$130 $110-$205
Fixed = 55' $65-$80 $65-$165 $60-$150 $140-$250
Moveable $80-$115 $115-$180 $105-$165 $200-$270
Notes: The values in this table are estimates with ranges of costs. These costs include a 25% contingency cost, escalation in cost for 15 years (3% per year), 20% engineering and environmental
cost, and 10% construction administration cost. Costs do not include right-of-way or environmental mitigation.
Source: Dokken Engineering, 2010.
Foi each biiuge type the cost estimates
incluueu thiee uieient ciosssections with
vaiying wiuths to accommouate the moual
options shown in Figuie ES Actual biiuge
wiuths coulu vaiy by as much as feet fiom
the wiuths assumeu foi these pieliminaiy
estimates Foi example the peuestiian
bicycleonly option was assumeu to be at
least feet so it coulu also accommouate
moues such as neighboihoou electiic
vehicles Naiiowei options that woulu
accommouate only peuestiianbicycle
moues woulu have lowei constiuction costs
Table ES summaiizes the cost estimates
Auuitional uetails about the cost estimates
aie available in the Technical Infoimation
Compilation Repoit
These cost estimates iepiesent a signiicant
iange anu uo not incluue iightofway
enviionmental mitigation oi enhanceu
aesthetic uesigns Each of these items can auu
signiicantly to the cost amount uepenuing
on the speciic location although the
enviionmental assessment uiu not iuentify
majoi enviionmental constiaints that woulu
uiamatically change the cost estimates between
the alteinative locations While a complete cost
is uificult to estimate at this eaily planning
stage the iange in Table ES is geneially in line
with the cuiient funuing piojection containeu
in the Saciamento Regional Netiopolitan
Tianspoitation Plan SAC0u of
appioximately million Bowevei this plan
is being upuateu anu auuitional funuing may be
uesignateu foi new iivei ciossings
Summary Report | Page 19
Sacramento River Crossings
Alternatives Study
Findings
The piincipal inuing of this stuuy is that a
cleai neeu exists foi a new ciossing of the
Saciamento Rivei but insteau of just one
new ciossing at least two new ciossings aie
neeueu This is paiticulaily eviuent foi the
unueiseiveu maikets noith anu south of the
I Stieet anu Pioneei Biiuges New ciossings
woulu accomplish the following objectives
Increase economic activity and access to jobs
Improve the potential to achieve planned
urban development and redevelopment
Reduce trip lengths to make walking and
bicycling viable travel modes across the river
Reduce undesirable delays to automobiles,
trucks, and public transit
Increase the opportunities for public access
to the riverfront for recreation
Improve travel safety and increase evacuation
alternatives during emergency situations
The ivemile stuuy segment of the Saciamento
Rivei is seiveu by two local biiuges the Towei
Biiuge anu the I Stieet Biiuge locateu just less
than onehalf mile apait Tiavel by all moues
acioss the iivei must use these two biiuges foi
eastwest tiavel except foi vehicles that have
the option of using 0S Pioneei Biiuge The
I Stieet Biiuge is yeais olu anu its uppei
ioauway is too naiiow to seive buses it has no
bicycle facilities anu it has veiy naiiow siuewalks
The two new ciossings shoulu incluue one
that seives the noith maiket anu one that
seives the south maiket The most piomising
alteinatives foi each maiket as shown on
Figuie ES anu the puiposes they woulu
seive aie uesciibeu below
NORTH MARKET ALTERNATIVES
The ciossings at Locations anu woulu pioviue
connectivity between majoi planneu uevelopments
incluuing the Washington Specific Plan anu Califoinia
Inuian Beiitage Centei in West Saciamento anu
the Railyaius anu Rivei Bistiict in Saciamento
Location 2: C Street to Railyards Boulevard
This ciossing woulu maintain the west
appioach of the existing I Stieet Biiuge at
C Stieet but shift the east appioach away fiom
I anu I Stieets anu the associateu I iamps to
Railyaius Boulevaiu This ciossing is likely to be
less costly anu uisiuptive to implement because
its alignment noith of the I Stieet Biiuge
allows the existing I Stieet Biiuge to iemain
in opeiation Aftei the thiee coie biiuges
Locations anu it has the highest
population anu employee total within both a
onehalf mile aiea anu a iveminute uiive
Location 3: I Street Bridge Replacement
This ciossing woulu ieplace the I Stieet Biiuge
at its cuiient location but wiuen it to pioviue
peuestiian anu bicycle facilities The existing
iail line woulu be maintaineu anu the ioauway
wiueneu to allow buses to use the biiuge
Replacement of the I Stieet Biiuge woulu
iequiie maintenance of fieight anu passengei
iail tiafic uuiing constiuction
American River
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o

R
i
v
e
r
S
R
iv
e
r R
d
W Capitol Av
F St
L
in
d
e
n
R
d
In
d
u
s
t
r
ia
l B
l
3
r
d

S
t
N
H
a
r
b
o
r
B
l
Lake Wa
sh
in
g
t
o
n
B
l
R
iv
e
r
b
a
n
k
R
d
15th St
V
i
l
l
a
g
e

P
k
W
e
s
t
a
c
r
e

R
d
Stonegate Dr
Sacramento Av
Merkley A
v
B St
R
i
s
k
e

L
n
S
u
n
s
e
t
A
v
Evergreen Av
S

R
i
v
e
r

R
d
3
r
d

S
t
6
t
h

S
t
L St
F
r
e
e
p
o
r
t

B
l
v
d
Broad
w
ay
W
St
R
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
e

B
l
v
d
P St
N
St
K St
5
t
h

S
t
9
t
h

S
t
7
t
h

S
t
1
5
t
h

S
t
1
9
t
h

S
t
8
t
h

S
t
1
0
t
h

S
t
L
a
n
d

P
a
r
k

D
r
A
l
h
a
m
b
r
a

B
l
v
d
1
2
t
h

S
t
Richard
s Blvd
F
r
o
n
t

S
t
C
ap
itol A
ve
N
B St
Sutterville Rd
N
1
2
th
S
t
N

1
6
t
h

S
t
C
ap
itol M
all
Vallejo W
ay
N

7
t
h

S
t
D

S
t
Vallejo W
ay
E St
2
4
t
h

S
t
I St
T St
F St
H
St
C
St
G
St
Q
St
R St
1
6
t
h

S
t
2
4
t
h

S
t
21st Ave
2nd
A
ve
2
1
s
t

S
t

5
[
50
|}
99
MARKET AREA
FIGURE ES-5
N
NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND
Crossing Location Alternatives
Opportunity Sites for
Planned Development or
Redevelopment
Planned Roadways
North Market
Central Market
South Market
River District
Specic Plan
River District
Specic Plan
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Summary Report | Page 21
Sacramento River Crossings
Alternatives Study
SOUTH MARKET ALTERNATIVES
The ciossing at Location woulu pioviue
connectivity between the Pioneei Blu
a planneu ieuevelopment aiea along the
West Saciamento iiveifiont anu the Bocks
uevelopment pioject Nillei Paik anu the
Bioauway commeicial uistiict in Saciamento
The ciossing at Location woulu pioviue
connectivity between piimaiily iesiuential
neighboihoous incluuing the Southpoit aiea
in West Saciamento anu the Lanu Paik aiea
in Saciamento but also attiact iegional tiafic
to the new shoitei uistance ioute between
SR I anu I
Location 6: 15th Street to Broadway or W
Street/X Street couplet
This ciossing is locateu just south of the
existing Pioneei Biiuge It woulu seive
multiple puiposes incluuing impioving access
to jobs anu suppoiting planneu iiveifiont
uevelopment Compaieu to the othei ciossings
locateu outsiue the existing coie ciossings
anu it yielus the highest population
anu employment within both a onehalf mile
aiea anu a iveminute uiive
Location 8: Linden Road to Sutterville Road
This ciossing is locateu at the southein euge
of the stuuy aiea The uistance between this
ciossing anu the neaiest ciossing to the noith
Pioneei Biiuge is appioximately two miles
As such a ciossing at this location woulu yielu
a signiicant beneit in teims of ieuucing tiip
lengths iequiieu to cioss the iivei
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Public anu stakeholuei sentiment suggests that
any new ciossing shoulu accommouate multiple
moues incluuing bicycles peuestiians anu
vehicles This was baseu on a numbei of factois
incluuing the uesiie foi new ciossings to seive as
complete stieets that accommouate all useis
0thei impoitant consiueiations uiawn
foi each maiket aiea uuiing the stuuy aie
uesciibeu in uetail below
North Market This area has no existing
bridges and substantial planned growth on
both sides of the river. Without a new bridge,
this area will have limited accessibility
that could affect the amount of future
development. This could mean that some
population and employment growth occurs
farther from the urban cores of Sacramento
and West Sacramento, which would likely
increase the amount of vehicle travel that
occurs in the region and contribute to
greater levels of energy use and emissions.
Central Market This area is already
served by the I Street and Tower Bridges.
The Tower Bridge functions well and
accommodates multiple modes, but
modiications would be required to
accommodate rail transit. Another crossing
opportunity for bicycles and pedestrians
does not exist south of Tower Bridge. A
new bridge at Location 5 (R Street) would
improve accessibility and connectivity to
this area for all modes. After the existing
Tower and I Street Bridges, it has the highest
level of 2035 population and employment
Page 22 | Summary Report
Sacramento River Crossings
Alternatives Study
within both a one-half mile area and a
ive-minute drive. However, the inclusion of
vehicles would likely increase trafic volumes
through residential neighborhoods.
South Market This area has the highest
level of existing population and employment
that is not served by a bridge. The area is
large enough that more than one bridge
could be justiied. This area has some key
challenges related to any bridge crossings
at Locations 7 (Marina View) and 8
(Sutterville). Location 7 would require a
bridge through Miller Park, which could
disrupt existing public recreational areas
and cause circuitous routing. A bridge at
Location 8 would likely increase trafic
volumes through residential neighborhoods.
NEXT STEPS
Auvancing a speciic biiuge alteinative
to the next phase of pioject uevelopment
woulu involve pieliminaiy engineeiing
moie uetaileu alteinative analysis anu
enviionmental ieview to comply with the
Califoinia Enviionmental 0uality Act CE0A
anu the National Enviionmental Policy
Act NEPA The pieliminaiy engineeiing
woik will be essential to ueteimine speciic
footpiint locations iight of way issues anu
how a new biiuge woulu connect to the
existing ioauway system 0thei impoitant
engineeiing uetails incluue whethei the biiuge
woulu be ixeu oi moveable The alteinative
analysis woulu incluue moie ieineu tiavel
uemanu foiecasts anu tiafic opeiations
analysis to help ueteimine the numbei of lanes
foi each alteinative anu whethei mouiications
aie iequiieu to connecting ioauways tiansit
lines anu bicyclepeuestiian facilities The
enviionmental ieview will incluue the typical
biological anu cultuial iesouice evaluation
but this pioject woulu likely involve special
issues ielateu to iesiuential neighboihoou
sensitivity aesthetics constiuction in a iivei
ecosystem anu 0S Coast uuaiu veitical
cleaiance iequiiements